Search

Purpose: To compare ischemia-related clinical outcomes in patients treated with either ranibizumab pro re nata (PRN) or single dexamethasone implant in the Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion (COMRADE-B) or Central Retinal Vein Occlusion (COMRADE-C) trials. Methods: A post-hoc analysis of the Phase IIIb, 6-month, multicenter, double-masked, randomized, COMRADE-B and COMRADE-C trials. Change over 6 months in retinal ischemia status (central avascular [CA] zone and peripheral nonperfusion [PNP]), mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), the development of shunt vessels and neovascularization, and frequency of laser therapy were assessed in retinal vein occlusion (RVO) patients treated with either ranibizumab 0.5 mg PRN or single dexamethasone 0.7 mg implant, as per European labels, in the COMRADE-B (N = 244; ranibizumab, 126, dexamethasone, 118) or COMRADE-C (N = 243; ranibizumab, 124, dexamethasone, 119) trials. BCVA progression in ischemic vs. non-ischemic patients based on the ischemia assessment at month 6 was carried out. Results: Visual acuity (VA) gains from baseline to month 6 were higher with ranibizumab than with dexamethasone in both patients with central ischemia and those with peripheral retinal nonperfusion, independent of the type of RVO (branch or central). The presence of CA and PNP had a significant impact on VA gain over 6 months in CRVO patients (p <.0001), while there was no significant impact in BRVO. Ranibizumab was associated with less new ischemia than dexamethasone. Central RVO patients treated with dexamethasone received more laser treatments over the 6 months than those treated with ranibizumab, while there was no difference in the frequency of laser therapy between the branch RVO treatment groups. Conclusions: VA gain over six months in ranibizumab-treated RVO patients is not affected by ischemia, and is associated with less development of new ischemia during the first 6 months of treatment and equal or fewer laser treatments than dexamethasone implant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare typical findings of diabetic retinopathy in optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) and fluorescein angiography (FA). Subjects/Methods: 42 patients were enrolled in this study. We performed FA and obtained en face 3 × 3 mm OCTA images of the macular region. The count of microaneurysms (MAs) and the size of the foveal avascular zone (FAZ) were compared. The assessability of the imaging modalities was graded in each eye. Results: 53 eyes of 42 patients with a mean age of 61 years were included. 36/53 eyes revealed nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy, 17/53 eyes had proliferative diabetic retinopathy. The mean size of the FAZ was 0.39 mm2 in FA and 0.42 mm2 in OCTA. The mean MA count was 14 in FA and 13 in OCTA. The assessability was favorable to OCTA in 38–41/53 eyes regarding the FAZ and favorable to FA in 45–49/53 eyes regarding MAs. Conclusion: We found a good agreement for the size of the FAZ and a weak agreement regarding the count of MAs in both imaging modalities. The readers favored OCTA for the assessment of the FAZ and FA for the assessment of MAs. Complementary use of FA and OCTA ensures the best diagnostic approach in patients with diabetic retinopathy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Der Ophthalmologe is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Purpose: Intravitreal injection of the VEGF-binding protein aflibercept is widely used to treat various ocular diseases. In vitro, immortalized bovine retinal endothelial cells (iBREC) take up and transport aflibercept through the cell layer in a serum-dependent manner, likely mediated through the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), but degradation of the Fc domain-containing protein might be a competing intracellular process. Therefore, aflibercept's associations with proteins either involved in FcRn-mediated transport or in the lysosomal pathway were studied.Methods: Confluent iBREC pre-cultivated with or without FBS were exposed for 4 h to in vivo achievable 250 μg/ml aflibercept, before cells were harvested for immunofluorescence staining or preparation of protein extracts. Intracellular localization of aflibercept and putative co-localizations with proteins involved in transport of IgG/FcRn complexes, i.e., endosomal Rab4 and Rab11, components of the cytoskeleton, motor proteins, or with marker proteins characteristic of multivesicular bodies or lysosomes were assessed by co-immunofluorescence stainings. Amounts of expressed endogenous proteins and of internalized aflibercept were determined by Western blot analyses.Results: Aflibercept-specific perinuclear staining overlapped with that of the motor protein dynein whereas double staining with an anti-kinesin antibody resulted in a patchy pattern. In addition, aflibercept was typically present close to microtubules and often co-localized with α-tubulin. Rab4 and Rab11 stainings partly overlapped with the perinuclear staining of aflibercept whereas co-localization with Rab7 (in late endosomes/lysosomes) was only rarely seen. Interestingly, aflibercept but not the IgG bevacizumab broadly co-localized with the cation-independent mannose 6-phosphate receptor characteristic of multivesicular endosomes. In accordance with partial degradation beside transcytosis, the amount of intracellular aflibercept increased when cells were treated with protease inhibitors MG-132 or MG-101. Serum-deprived iBREC expressed less Rab11 and dynein but slightly more Rab4.Conclusion: After uptake by iBREC, aflibercept is present in organelles associated with FcRn-mediated transport, but part of the protein is subject to degradation. Transport inhibition of aflibercept during cultivation without FBS is likely a consequence of an attenuated exocytosis due to decreased expression of Rab11. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The COMRADE studies are the first randomized controlled head‐to‐head trials comparing the efficacy and safety of intravitreal ranibizumab versus dexamethasone (DEX) in patients with macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO). The COMRADE extension trial was designed to provide additional 6‐month data of patients who completed the core studies. Methods: In this open‐label, phase IV study patients who completed the COMRADE core studies were prospectively enrolled. Overall, 92 branch RVO (BRVO) patients (ranibizumab 52, DEX 40) and 83 central RVO (CRVO) patients (ranibizumab 61, DEX 22) were treated, and 94.6% of BRVO patients and 97.6% of CRVO patients completed the extension study. Patients were assigned to the same treatment group as in the core studies. Patients were monitored monthly and received either 0.5 mg ranibizumab or a 0.7 mg DEX implant as needed. Results: Over the course of the extension, treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of the study eye occurred in 55.8% of BRVO patients on ranibizumab and in 62.5% of those on DEX. Among CRVO patients, 65.5% in the ranibizumab group and 59.1% in the DEX group developed TEAEs. Overall, elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) was more frequent with DEX than ranibizumab treatment. Mean average change in best‐corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in BRVO patients was significantly better for ranibizumab than DEX (p = 0.0249). The CRVO results were consistent with BRVO's, although not significant (p = 0.1119). Conclusion: When used according to the European labels, ranibizumab revealed a better ocular safety profile and produced greater average BCVA gains than DEX. By the end of the additional 6‐month study period, this difference in BCVA was more pronounced in BRVO as in CRVO patients. The main limitation of the COMRADE studies was that DEX patients received only a single intravitreal treatment during the first 6 months, which is presumably not adequate. However, frequent DEX implants could lead to more steroid‐related side effects, especially to an increased intraocular pressure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of ranibizumab 0.5 mg versus dexamethasone 0.7 mg according to their European labels in macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) in a 6‐month, phase IIIb, randomized trial. Methods: Patients received either monthly ranibizumab for 3 months followed by Pro re nata (PRN) treatment (n = 126) or a sustained‐release dexamethasone implant followed by PRN sham injections (n = 118). Main outcomes were mean average change in best‐corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline to month 1 through month 6, mean changes in BCVA and foveal centre point thickness (FCPT), and adverse events (AEs). Results: There was no difference in BCVA gains between the treatments prior to month 3. Best‐corrected visual acuity (BCVA) gain with dexamethasone declined thereafter. From month 3 to month 6, mean BCVA change from baseline was significantly higher with ranibizumab than with dexamethasone [raw means (standard deviation):+16.2 (±11) letters versus +9.3 (±10.1) letters]. At month 6, the difference in BCVA gains from baseline was +17.3 letters in the ranibizumab versus +9.2 letters in the dexamethasone group. Patients in the ranibizumab group received a mean of 2.94 loading injections and 1.74 PRN retreatment injections, while those in the dexamethasone group received a single loading injection. Elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) and AEs were more frequent with dexamethasone than ranibizumab treatment. Conclusion: Ranibizumab PRN resulted in greater visual acuity (VA) gains in macular oedema following BRVO compared with single‐dose dexamethasone over a 6‐month study period, observed from month 3, when administered according to their European label. In clinical practice, retreatment with dexamethasone may be required prior to this point. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aims: Hallmark of diabetic macular edema is the enhanced permeability of retinal endothelial cells (REC) induced by vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF-A165), which acts through activating specific receptors. To improve the predictability of inhibitors' potentials to block harmful effects of VEGF-A165, we investigated if its signaling pathways triggered in REC are redundant. Methods: Immortalized bovine REC monolayers were treated with inhibitors specific for various protein kinases in combination with VEGF-A165. Permeability was monitored continuously by measurements of the cell index (Cl) to reveal even subtle and transient changes. Expression of tight junction (TJ) proteins was determined as additional indicator of barrier stability. Results: After a sharp but transient Cl drop caused by VEGF-A155 early after its addition, further exposure resulted in a continuous Cl decline over several days associated with loss of TJ protein claudin-1. Both phases were blocked by inhibition of VEGF receptor 2. Tested inhibitors of intracellular kinases had a limited or no effect, or were efficient only in certain phases of exposure to VEGF-A165, e.g. inhibiting protein kinase C only prevented the early response. High concentrations of some inhibitors even resulted in VEGF-independent barrier destabilization. Conclusions: Specific kinase inhibitors differently affect VEGF-A165-triggered processes in distinct phases of its action. VEGF-A165-initiated signaling is redundant and blocking of key proteins of single pathways is not sufficient to suppress REC barrier breakdown. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]